In later chapters, Price argues that retrocausality can resolve many of the philosophical issues facing quantum mechanics and along these lines proposes an interpretation involving what he calls 'advanced action'.

Taking a time-symmetric view, he then speculates that entropy may decrease again, reaching a minimum at the end of the universe.

Price criticizes explanations of this phenomenon from Karl Popper and Paul Davies and Dieter Zeh.

Explanations from Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies of the low entropy big bang are scrutinized.

It is argued that, while μInnocence is intuitively plausible, it arises from a temporal double standard with respect to causality.

Price argues that ideas about causation exert greater influence on physicists than is generally acknowledged.

Bell's theorem and the GHZ experiment are then introduced in the context of hidden-variables interpretations of quantum mechanics.

He argues against superdeterminism, the idea that a quantum system and measurement apparatus are correlated due to a common cause in the past.

Joel Lebowitz gave the book a mixed review for Physics Today where he called Price's arguments regarding backward causation "unconvincing", but praised the section on quantum mechanics, writing "his discussion ... of the Bohr-Einstein 'debate' about the completeness of the quantum description of reality is better than much of the physics literature".

[2] Peter Coveney gave the book a mixed review for the New Scientist, criticizing Price's treatment of non-equilibrium statistical mechanics, but concluding by saying "[a]lthough I didn't find many of the arguments convincing, Price's book is a useful addition to the literature on time, particularly as it reveals the influence of modern science on the way a philosopher thinks.

But given its restricted and idiosyncratic character, this book should be read only in conjunction with more broadly based works.

[6] Carlo Rovelli chose the book as one of his favourite books on the subject of time, calling Huw Price "one of the best living philosophers" and saying that it "teaches us an important lesson: we are so used to think time as naturally oriented that we instinctively think that the future is determined by the past even if we try not to"[7]